Veilside1

Even if an organization were to attempt to rank classics PhD programs, it would be a useless list for most. Classics has some very specific specialties which certain schools are well-known for being the best in, while otherwise not so strong. For example, the University if Cincinnati is probably the best for Bronze Age archaeology, but for every other aspect of classics it is mediocre. So how do you rank UCinn? This is the problem. The bottom line is quite clear. For job security you need a PhD from an Ivy or the few 'Par-Ivies'. If you don't have a PhD from one of them you're pretty much out of luck. Unless of course you are a Bronze Age archaeologist with a PhD from UCinn, or another such 'exception school'. Also, since there is only around 12 solid programs out there worth your time, what does it really matter to rank them? Apply to them all, whoever accepts you compare them. If you're accepted into even two top-12 programs you're a real fortunate applicant, so at that time worry about who is better by directly comparing the faculty, program, placement, fit, etc,... But, if you asked for my simple, humble opinion of a general guide to a ranking of PhD classics programs... here you go. 1. Princeton University 2. UC-Berkeley (AHMA) 3. Stanford 4. University of Pennsylvania 5. Yale University 6. UNC-Chapel Hill 7. Columbia University 8. University of Michigan 9. University of Chicago 10. Cornell University 11. Brown University / Duke University 12. Harvard University Yes, Harvard is 12th of the top-12. Take a good hard look at their faculty list; it is awful!! There is nobody there of any real significance--long gone are the days of Badian and Bowersock. Harvard is coasting in neutral right now, and quite honestly has been for the last 5-10 years. But it's Harvard. So the name is deliciously tempting to anyone who would get accepted, but from people that I know who are there, they all wished they chose somewhere else. But....this is only "my" perception of the best schools. Now, to clarify, if I were to assign numerical values to these programs, Princeton would be a 100, and Brown/Duke would be about a 95. So no real heavy variation in the overall quality..... Harvard, probably dips to about a 90, with name recognition, job placement, and their amazing library being their saving grace. How does Ohio State, UTexas-Austin, UCLA, NYU, Boston U, U-Cinn, CUNY, UVirginia fare? I would say in the low 70s. Maybe some people get jobs, but unless community college or private prep school is your goal stick to the top 12.

Well, if your accepted, during the week prior to the beginning of the fall semester you will take a Greek and Latin diagnostic exams (no dictionary) to determine what level of Greek and Latin you are placed in. The exam is not too bad, you get three passages choose two if memory serves. Nothing too difficult (no Thucydides, Tacitus, etc,..). As far as how much ancient language is needed in order to get accepted? I would say that have one be at the upper-level undergraduate level and therefore ready for graduate-level, and the other at the 200-level ready for the upper undergrad (400) level. Not sure who it was that you emailed, but some professors recently retired this last spring and a few others are on sabbatical this year.

In terms of the MA... not too sure. But stick with the known good schools: WUSTL, UColorado-Boulder, UArizona, Georgia, and FSU. As far as PhD goes, yes, there are many programs to avoid. Unfortunately many of them are decent schools and programs. In order to secure a good tenure-track job in the field of classics, you need to have a strong PhD. Remember, every year the top-ten schools produce 2-6 fresh PhDs who will then enter the job market. That's about 20-60 people, and they're from top-ten schools. PLUS, you have all of those who for the past 3-5 years have been bouncing around from visiting professorship to visiting professorship who also are applying for jobs and also are from a top-ten school. And remember, there are already few tenure-track jobs for a classicist as it is. What does this mean? Quite simple really: If you don't get your PhD from an Ivy or a "par-Ivy" don't bother. And yes, I'm sure someone will post on here that they know of professor X who received their PhD from a second-tier PhD program and they have tenure.... well great!! Look at the other 99% of tenured faculty and where they're from. I hate it as much as you, but this is the unfortunate fact of our profession. As for "par-Ivies", I would say: Berkeley, Stanford, Chicago, Michigan, Duke, and UNC-CH. If one of these, or an Ivy does not accept you, don't waste the six years.

I am currently in the MA program at UArizona and nearly every student is fully-funded. Your tuition is paid in full, health insurance, and you are given a GAT stipend of either .25, .33, or .50 the salary of an instructor. You will get .25 (which is about $350.00 every two weeks) if you are TA-ing; .33 (about $420 every two weeks) if you are teaching Latin-101/2, and .50 (about $700 every two weeks) if you do double-duty as a TA. I know that Tulane and Tufts also offer decent scholarships for the MA, but Tulane is just a glorified undergraduate program, and Tufts is falling apart. Good luck!!